Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishita Patel vs Rajeev Gandhi Produgiki ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 26810 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ISHITA PATEL D/O AMIT PATEL, AGED ABOUT 20
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O 1465 VIJAY
NAGAR JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATISH VERMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RAJEEV GANDHI PRODUGIKI VISHWVIDHALAYA
(RGPV) THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, AIRPORT
BYPASS ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. GLOBAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR, GLOBAL SQUARE, PATAN BYPASS,
RAIGWAN JABALPUR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PARITOSH GUPTA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs :-
"(i) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
respondents to accept the examination form for the fifth semester
examination of the petitioner, starting from 7th December, 2022;
(ii) To trace the missing answer copy of the petitioner and examine
the same and allot numbers after proper verification;
(iii) To direct the respondents that if they failed to trace the copy,
grant average marks in the subject whose answer copy has been
misplaced by them, according to the marks petitioner got in other
subjects;
(iv) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances
of this case, along with the cost of this writ petition also awarded."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she took admission in the respondent
No.2-Global Engineering College for the course of Bachelor of Technology
affiliated to the Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya/respondent No.1.
She appeared in the first semester examination in the month of March, 2021. It
was an open-book examination to be completed at home and submission of
answer copies in the college. The petitioner appeared in all subjects and duly
submitted the answer copies. In the month of June, 2021, the result of first
semester was declared but the petitioner's result was withheld and she was
informed by the respondent No.2 that some copies have not been checked and
her result will be declared soon. In July, 2021, her result was declared, in which
no marks were assigned in one subject. The revaluation time was of 7 days
which had elapsed before the petitioner's result was declared. The petitioner has
obtained excellent marks in all subjects except in 'Basic Computer Engineering'
theory paper subject. In the said subject, in practical, she has obtained full
marks and in the theory paper, no marks were given to her. The petitioner time
and again approached the authorities to find out the reason why no marks have
been given to her. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the next
semester. She has cleared all the semesters with good marks. It is her case that
the answer book of the petitioner for the subject of 'Basic Computer
Engineering' has been misplaced by the respondents, therefore, no marks have
been provided.
3. On notice being issued, reply has been filed by the respondents No.1 and
2 separately. Attention is drawn to the return filed by the respondent No.2
wherein it is accepted by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has submitted
the answer sheet of Basic Computer Engineering subject at their centre on
13.03.2021 and a receipt was given to her. It is further admitted by them that the
answer book of the petitioner of 'Basic Computer Engineering' has been
deposited to Nodal Centre-2 with all other candidates. Therefore, there is no
dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner had deposited the answer
sheet with respondent No.2. However, the respondent/University by filing a
reply has taken a specific stand that they have never received the answer-sheet
of the petitioner, therefore, no marks could have been granted and she has been
marked as absent in the aforesaid subject.
4. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that there is no dispute with respect
to submission of the answer sheet by the petitioner to the respondent
No.2/College. The documents annexed along with the reply by the respondent
No.2 at Page No.8 and 10 show the receipt of the petitioner's answer sheet
wherein her name and roll number finds place at Serial No.39. The said answer
sheets were duly forwarded on 01.07.2021 by the Examination Controller but
the answer sheet of the petitioner was not received by the University which is
clear from the stand taken in the return. However, the fact remains that the
answer sheet of the petitioner has been misplaced either by the College or by
the University as the respondent No.2 is admitting the submission of answer-
sheet of 'Basic Computer Engineering' subject by the petitioner with the
respondent No.2. Therefore, the student i.e. the petitioner cannot be held to be
at fault for the same. However, if the answer-sheet is not received by the
University/respondent No.1, then the same may be due to fault of either of the
respondent No.1 or respondent No.2.
5. A specific question was put to the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1/University that in such circumstances when the answer-sheet of the
student is lost either by the College or University what is the provision to handle
such a situation. He fairly submits that there is no provision provided under the
Universities Ordinance to deal with such a situation. However, he fairly admits
the fact that in terms of various decisions by the Courts, the student cannot be
said to be at fault and average marks are required to be granted to him. The law
with respect to the aforesaid is settled by the various cases of different High
Courts. In the case of Radha Devi vs Himachal Pradesh University and others :
CWP No.807 of 2023 decided on 22.05.2023 by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh at Shimla, it is observed thus :
"41. In such situation, the method known as 'proportionate quotient'
(PQ method) could only be adopted, which seems to be more
reasonable for redressing the grievance of the petitioner. The
proportionate quotient is based upon the proportionate marks to be
awarded to the petitioner on the basis of average marks obtained
by her in other papers of B.Ed. Degree, which, she has already
qualified. Ordered accordingly."
6. In the case of Saurabh Gokul Shelar vs Vice Chancellor : Writ Petition (L)
No.3378 of 2017 decided by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on
12.12.2017, it is observed as follows :
"5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that
it will be in the interest of justice that the Respondent - University is
directed to allot an average of the marks obtained by the petitioner
in remaining subjects. We find that if that is done, that will reflect
the real merit of the petitioner in the subject of which the main
answer sheet is lost."
7. I n the case of Safna K.M. vs University of Kerala and others : WP(C)
No.17883 of 2021 decided by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on
08.09.2021, it is observed as under :
"6. Conceded position on record is that the petitioner owing to
medical condition could not undertake the 2nd semester at the
scheduled time and after recovering from the same, sat in the
examination way back in June, 2020, but her result as noticed
above against a particular subject has been shown as blank. Loss of
the answer sheets have not been denied by the University and in
that background of the matter, meeting has been scheduled for. This
Court cannot remain as a mute spectator as to whether the
scheduled meeting would culminate into some effective decision or
not as by that time the last date of submission of the application for
B.Ed may expire.
Thus, I dispose of the writ petition by issuing directions to the
Controller of Examinations of the University of Kerala to ponder
the task of awarding the average marks keeping in view her record
and result in the other examinations and declare the result by 14th
of September, 2021."
8. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well
as the fact that there is admission on the part of the respondent No.2 regarding
receipt of answer-sheet of 'Basic Computer Engineering' Theory subject
coupled with the judgments passed in the aforesaid cases, the petitioner cannot
be held responsible for loss of the answer-sheet of 'Basic Computer
Engineering' subject, therefore, she is entitled for grant of average marks in the
aforesaid subject. As the petitioner has already passed the semesters in
pursuance to various interim orders passed by this Court and only a Final
Semester is required to be attended by her, under these circumstances, once
this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of
average marks in the theory subject of 'Basic Computer Engineering', the
respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the Final
Semester Examination. The respondents are also directed to issue a fresh and
corrected mark-sheet to the petitioner after granting her average marks in the
subject of 'Basic Computer Engineering' theory subject.
9. Counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that they will complete the
proceedings within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed off. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
VV
